NVIDIA Simulation Debunks NASA's photo evidence of Apollo 11 Moon Landing

Last month a thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

was posted showing how an NVIDIA simulation provided proof that contested
photos of Buzz Aldrin coming down the LM could have actually happened...
and therefore prove the missions were real??

"Long story short, the simulation, taking into account the reflectivity of all the materials used, the position of the sun, camera, astronauts and the lander all stack up. Everything in the simulation perfectly matches what was seen on the moon that day, and this is all based on independently modelled events inside an Open Source game engine.


So powerful was the demonstration, that for the OP, it helped him or her believe that we went to the moon:

That's it for me, I'm now 100% convinced we went. My issues have been answered. Being a coder myself I know how close game engines are to reality in terms of their light modeling.

Now remember, just because the photos could be shown to be possible, based on our understanding
of the conditions on the moon, it doesn’t mean that the Apollo missions were real.
But it would take away strong evidence that the mission, at least the photos of the mission, were faked.

Jarrah White, has recently made a response video of the NVIDIA simulation. And he brings up some good points that could cast doubt on whether or not NVIDIA has truly proven that the Armstrong photos of Aldrin were possible.

"In summary, NVIDIA claims that Buzz Aldrin was illuminated in shadow primarily by light reflecting off Neil Armstrong's spacesuit and to a lesser part the lunar surface.

However, comparing NVIDIA's cgi image of Aldrin solely lit by the lunar surface with real life experiments taken on surfaces with the same albedo as the moon - not to mention photographs from Chang'e 3 and Lunokhod which show shaded objects in darkness unless the sunlit landscape is overexposed - it becomes clear that NVIDIA has upped the albedo setting on their cgi lunar surface to be far greater than the 0.12 claimed in their video. The actual albedo they used is probably 0.4. This is further evident by the fact that NVIDIA's cgi image with the light reflecting off Neil Armstrong's suit is only marginally brighter than without him."

But it was a video from AWE130 that flipped the evidence around and propose that the NVIDIA simulation actually PROVES the photos had to be faked that was the coup de grâce:

link:
www.youtube.com...

In the video, NVIDIA claims they HAD to use another a light source.
This is what people debunking NASA evidence have been saying all along.
The photos were not possible without another light source!

So now we have NVIDIA admitting that another light source
was necessary. Apollogists, or Apollo believers, have to either
debunk NVIDIA, or accept their assertion. Luckily for them, NVIDIA
claimed that they found the light source, and that light source was Neil.

But wait, there is a big problem with their assumption! As the videos explain...
Neil took the photos in the shade!

(a point I believe I made along time ago in a thread far far away)

Huge if true.

Unfortunately I think this will get very little attention from any sources other than video game forums and so on.

a reply to: FoosM

Interesting. The secnd video doesn't work, and I can't find that AWE fellow on Youtube? Is that his actual username?

a reply to: FoosM

Jarrah took down these people faster than he did the mythbusters

And these so-called debunkers have never been able to answer one simple question:

If there are two light sources, where is the second set of shadows?

Here's another question, who says Armstrong is in shadow? Any proof of that assertion? Here's a map of where the photographers were stood, determined by photogrammetry to help:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

The LM shadow (shown on the map) shortened during the EVA but did not change direction.

This post-EVA pan contains the two quad thrusters, so you can work out where Armstrong was standing. Looks to me as though it was not in the shade. Care to prove otherwise?

www.hq.nasa.gov...

And on a more general note, that magazine of photographs shows time and date specific images of Earth, and features that were not photographed again until the the LRO imaged them, such as the rocks in the bottom of crater not known about prior to landing. How does that work?

If you are relying on AWE130 for your proof, you've gone beyond the bottom of the barrel.

Are the photos made from recent probes sent to the Moon showing the lunar landing sites, with LM pad and rover tracks are fake, too?

originally posted by: eManym
Are the photos made from recent probes sent to the Moon showing the lunar landing sites, with LM pad and rover tracks are fake, too?

All the flags, landers, tracks, and laser reflectors were put on the moon by god to test our faith...

Or much more likely, humans have been to the moon a few times.

Its just cheese right? Can we melt it, have nachos?

The Nvidia model doesn't disprove the photo, it actually proves it. Its some third party internet “expert” that is claiming their model is flawed in some way.

edit: wrong thread

Now that the OP has added the youtube link and w can have a look at it, we can see what a piece of disingenuous nonsense it is.

I've already posted links showing where the LM shadow was, and the photogrammetric analysis of Apollo 11 images that identify where Armstrong was tanding when he took the photographs. I've rotated that image to match roughly the perspective of the 16mm camera mounted on the LM. I've pointed out a small crater using a green arrow.

On the post-EVA pan taken from the LM I've pointed out the same crater with the same coloured arrow, and used a red circle to identify roughly where Armstrong stood.



I've also taken an LRO view of the site from roughly the same time of lunar day, and identified the same small crater. You will not see this crater on any photographs of the site taken before Apollo 11 landed. They did not know it was there.



Armstrong was not standing in the shade, he was clearly lit by the sun, the light source flaring in the background as Aldrin descends the ladder is Armstrong's suit.

Any questions?

Yes, some photos were taken while he was in the sun, but you didn't watch all the videos.
The issue is the photo that Armstrong took right next to the ladder.


tierrauniversu.files.wordpress.com...

You will notice that no matter the distance of Armstrong, in the sun, far away, close by in the shade, the lighting
stays pretty much the same. Thats not possible.

a reply to: FoosM

I didn't watch the video, because Jarrah's voice makes me want to punch walls.

So, you carry on ignoring all the evidence that proves you wrong and let's look at the one you're hanging your hopes on, which I assume is

www.lpi.usra.edu...

and also this one from the ALSJ

www.hq.nasa.gov...

You might also want to look at

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Notice the flares off the LM structure to the right of Buzz in 5862?

Notice the sun bleeding into the image in 5863?

Not convinced?

Here's the full EVA:



And here's a screenshot of Neil when Buzz is emerging from the LM as his feet are clearing the hatch.



Notice anything?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

And here's a screenshot of Neil when Buzz is emerging from the LM as his feet are clearing the hatch.

Notice anything?

wait a minute wait a minute..

in the video the author was saying the bright source behind the ladder was a spotlight..

its not in this picture..

FoosM are you posting hoax videos again??

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Here's the full EVA:

I would recommend anyone who actually thinks Foos or the second YouTube account with it's video have any sort of point pay attention to 18:25 onwards, in particular around the 19:18 mark onwards.

Congratulations if you have now done this, you've accomplished something Foos, AWE and Jarrah have failed at - using your eyes and brain!

Stop posting hoax videos Foos, don't you see the irony?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Here's the full EVA:

originally posted by: AgentSmith
I would recommend anyone who actually thinks Foos or the second YouTube account with it's video have any sort of point pay attention to 18:25 onwards, in particular around the 19:18 mark onwards.

Congratulations if you have now done this, you've accomplished something Foos, AWE and Jarrah have failed at - using your eyes and brain!

Stop posting hoax videos Foos, don't you see the irony?

Quite Correct, AgentSmith. It's convenient for Jarrah White and the others to not show the entire video, because if they did show the entire video, then it would be clear that Jarrah is either lying, or has awful critical reasoning skills.

In the full video (in onebigmonkey's quote above), start watching at the 20:00 mark and onwards, and it becomes quickly evident (by 20:15) what Jarrah's "spotlight" really is (hint: it's not a spotlight).

So basically we can take a look at the following photo:

AS11-40-5862
109:39:57 First photo of Buzz coming out through the hatch.

To get that photo (5862) Neil had to be in the shade-
He was clearly in front of the ladder looking or pointing up!
As a matter of fact, prior to that photo, we can see on the map:


that he was already in the shade when he took the photo before 5862, 5861:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

But conveniently, somebody forgot to mark where Neil was when he took the photo in question 5862, and the one after 5863!
www.hq.nasa.gov...

But getting back to 5862
www.hq.nasa.gov...

NVIDIA has explained there HAD to be another light source for Buzz,
and the shadow side of the LM, to be so well lit for the camera equipment to expose for it correctly
without having the lunar surface blown out or over-exposed!

It could not be Neil in this case, as he was in the shade when he took:


So what was the other light source?

How so many people can not see the fakery in this is incredible.
We live in an age where special effects and reality are becoming blurred
due to technological advances. So if we can't see fakery back in the 1960's,
how can we detect fakery in the 21st century?

a reply to: FoosM

Why do you ignore what has been posted?

Watch the video. He was not completely in the shade. He may have been in the shade in previous photographs, but what with him having legs and all, he moved. You can see him move. You can see the photo is taken from a completely different location The sun is clearly flaring off his suit when Buzz leaves the LM hatch, you even get to see him take the photograph with the sun flaring off his suit.

NVidia did say there had to be another light source. They then point out what the other light source was: Neil's suit.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: FoosM

Why do you ignore what has been posted?

Watch the video. He was not completely in the shade. He may have been in the shade in previous photographs, but what with him having legs and all, he moved. You can see him move. You can see the photo is taken from a completely different location The sun is clearly flaring off his suit when Buzz leaves the LM hatch, you even get to see him take the photograph with the sun flaring off his suit.

NVidia did say there had to be another light source. They then point out what the other light source was: Neil's suit.

Ok, onebigmonkey... you say watch the video.
Now Im going to challenge you to identify the point in time when Neil took 5862.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I need to see a camera point up, or Neil leaning back to take that photo while he was standing next to the ladder.

originally posted by: FoosM
Ok, onebigmonkey... you say watch the video.
Now Im going to challenge you to identify the point in time when Neil took 5862.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I need to see a camera point up, or Neil leaning back to take that photo while he was standing next to the ladder.

I know you were not talking to me, but look at 19:04 on that YouTube video or at 2:23 on the video from this link, a 3:23 video that starts at 109:37:34.